2. Types of monitoring and surveillance

What is workplace monitoring?

Employers engage in monitoring activities in many work situations as well as holding and processing private data received from third parties. Examples include:

• CCTV;

• monitoring software usage, including website logs, photocopier use, email use, phone logs;

• vehicle tracking;

• digital software (including fingerprinting and iris recognition) for attendance monitoring;

• micro chips (RFID tags) in security passes and swipe cards to monitor movement and to regulate building security;

• use of mystery shoppers; and

• computerised performance monitoring.

These activities involve storing, using and processing personal information about individual workers which means that they will normally be covered by the Data Protection Act 1998 (See Chapter 3). Employers also store a range of information on employees in personnel files, some of which may come from external sources, such as credit reference agencies and from the Criminal Records Bureau.

Surveillance techniques

LRD carried out a survey of workplace trade union contacts in November 2011, asking them about their concerns over surveillance and monitoring techniques and to forward any agreements or procedures in place to deal with these issues at their workplaces. Their responses, as well as other examples detailed below, indicate the methods being used by employers and the ways in which some might be failing to meet their legal obligations.

Mystery shoppers

Workers dealing with customers of any kind, whether face-to-face or by phone, email or letter, may be subject to scrutiny by “mystery shoppers” who use a number of methods to measure and report on employees’ performance, including:

• telephone enquiries (testing contactability, speed of answering, efficiency, quality, call handling, transfers);

• out-of-hours calls (quality of response);

• fulfilment (how reliably and quickly material is requested by phone received by post);

• emails (contactability, speed of answering, efficiency, quality, language, layout);

• face-to-face contact (how welcoming, how smart, was there a wait and if so how long, call handling quality);

• letters (contactability, speed of answering, efficiency, quality, language, layout); and

• what facilities there are for leaving messages and how quickly they are called back.

Monitoring using mystery shoppers is common in many customer-facing workplaces. General union Unite explained to LRD how this practice impacts on the daily lives of staff in the retail banking sector. Typically, a mystery shopper visits a branch covertly, without prior warning, and compiles a report on a range of specific issues. These include organisational issues (such as branch smartness, queue management, waiting time) as well as issues specific to the performance of the member of staff serving the mystery shopper. Colleague behaviour is also assessed.

Marks are awarded (or taken away) based on performance scored against a fixed series of criteria such as whether the worker greeted the mystery customer with a genuine smile, used the customer’s name at least once, made eye contact or asked if there was anything further s/he could help with, said goodbye or ended the encounter with a friendly comment. An unsatisfactory score can have disciplinary consequences such as a verbal warning. Unite argues that as the mystery shopper is anonymous and the member cannot challenge any allegations, this is wholly unfair, and that the use of mystery shoppers should be limited to training purposes.

Unite has identified other problems with this kind of monitoring. For example, a “one-size-fits-all” approach to customer exchanges and a demand that a conversation include key phrases or pointers reduces staff discretion, generates stilted, unnatural interaction and inhibits normal behaviour with established customers. In “real life”, individuals are trusted to make judgments about how best to communicate based, for example, on individual differences such as age or demeanour. The subjective nature of the criteria is also worrying. Who judges, for example, whether a smile is “genuine” and what if the mystery shopper has had a bad day? There is also plenty of evidence about the relationship between stress and the constant demand to self-regulate behaviour in this way.

As well as using “mystery shoppers”, retail banks monitor by conducting random phone-based customer satisfaction reviews, asking a fixed set of questions about service quality based on a recent branch experience. Again, questions can extend beyond organisational issues like waiting time to include detailed questions about the service delivery of the individual worker. Results typically feed into the branch bonus and the branch manager’s performance rating.

The LRD survey also highlighted the frequent use of mystery passengers — “undercover supervisors who travel on buses and monitor staff performance” by monitoring the service provided by the driver and checking, for example, for unscheduled stops.

These are not new developments. In an example taken from 2007, the Liverpool Echo reported young people aged between 13 and 20 being paid to act as mystery shoppers to assess staff performance at the Nextstep Connexions Advice Service. Posing as homeless people or apprentices, they were trained to make judgments on responses such as helpfulness, eye contact and smiling and to note things like waiting times, resources, disabled access, signs and information. Local union reps from public services union UNISON protested that they had not been consulted about the practice and likened it to spying on staff. The young people were trained and employed by education organisation Edge and the Skills Commission.

The threat to covertly record mystery shoppers in the retail banking sector resurfaced in 2011 when general union Unite and banking union Accord jointly fought off an attempt by a high street bank to engage in this practice. It took multiple strong representations at the highest level to persuade the bank to back down from a plan to use digital recording to secretly record mystery shoppers visiting branches. The unions argued successfully that as well as being thoroughly demoralising and underhand and undermining trust, the practice breached contracts of employment as it amounted to a breach of the legal duty of mutual trust and confidence.

The proposal clearly infringed the ICO Code which states, in particular, that covert monitoring can rarely be justified and must only be used in “exceptional circumstances” (see Chapter 3). In this case, it was also a breach of the bank’s own internal covert monitoring policy.

Unions complained that the managers they were dealing with appeared not to have been briefed on the data protection implications of their proposals, in breach of the Code. And although the bank suggested that information reported by the mystery shoppers would focus on “customer outcomes”, it was clear that individuals would be identifiable and that serious conduct issues could result in disciplinary action. It was therefore undeniable that mystery shopping was being used as a performance management tool.

The unions also pointed out how the recordings would contain personal data and that individual members of staff would be entitled to make Data Subject Access Requests for a copy of the recording featuring them, questioning who would take responsibility for managing this data and for responding to these requests.

Claims by the bank that digital recording of mystery shoppers was now widespread in the retail banking sector were not supported by evidence. The bank abandoned its attempt.

Use of covert surveillance in disciplinary investigations

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the latest LRD survey discloses that, in many workplaces, material obtained through covert surveillance is routinely used as evidence in disciplinary investigations. Some examples, such as using CCTV to detect theft or violence, are not normally controversial. But others, for example using surveillance to detect clocking infringements, breaches of vehicle policies, allegations of excessive internet use, or using investigators to collect video evidence of physical activity to show that sick pay claims are “bogus”, cause real concern amongst union reps. The law governing the use of covert surveillance material in disciplinary investigations is looked at in Chapter 3. Reps should note the stringent restrictions placed on its use by the Code. Reps defending workers accused of sick pay abuse may also find some of the material in LRD’s guide Sickness absence and sick pay (2010) useful.

Workplace use of CCTV surveillance

Reps responding to LRD’s latest survey provided many examples of CCTV use in the workplace. Some were benign, for example, security or genuine health and safety concerns, prevention of “sabotage”, queue control or maintaining product flow, whilst others were less so. For example, one rep in education reported how footage from CCTV cameras in the corridors was used to dismiss a member of staff summarily for allowing pupils to leave early. Another rep in the education sector gave the example of a member sacked for gross neglect of duty for leaving his classroom when taken ill and taking too long to report it. Other reps gave examples of CCTV footage being used to discipline staff for smoking away from the smoking shelter or outside their rest break, or sleeping on the night shift. Reps also reported CCTV being used to check start and finish times and to monitor staff movements.

Reps reported often finding that CCTV footage had their member “bang to rights”, leaving little room for argument and prompting apology and admission. Conversely, CCTV also has its uses, as one bus driver noted: “Sometimes it can be a benefit when proving your innocence.” Others questioned its usefulness even for its stated purpose, complaining of poor image quality, and one rep noted that on occasions when the union had asked to view the CCTV as it would have helped the member, it turned out to have been switched off or pointing the other way. Another rep in journalism described it as “...a pointless activity, which lowers morale and wastes money. Two thefts occurred after the cameras were installed, causing a certain amount of sardonic mirth”.

Several reps complained of the invasiveness of CCTV and reported on-going disputes, objecting in one case to plans to monitor the CCTV operators themselves, and in another to plans to install CCTV in the cabs of new refuse vehicles and in private rest rooms (the latter a likely infringement of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ICO Code — see Chapter 3). Another described successfully defending a gay member disciplined after being caught in an embrace in a private rest room.

According to a report by Hazards magazine, reps at Guy’s Hospital in London found hidden cameras in staff locker rooms and the post room, which management claimed had been installed on police recommendation to investigate alleged mail tampering. But police denied giving the advice and the cameras were removed. Hazards also cite an example involving Securicor, where unions found cameras installed in a locker-room used by female staff to change. The employer reportedly claimed the cameras had been installed in the wrong room.

The LRD survey shows how, as with other aspects of monitoring, staff perceptions of CCTV are strongly linked to underlying trust (or lack of) in management. Where there is proper consultation, clarity and agreement as to the purpose of CCTV or the siting of cameras, it is far less likely to engender mistrust. As one rep for a bus company explained: “We originally had serious problems with the use of CCTV but through strong negotiations we have made the agreement and policy workable for both sides. The one overriding criteria is trust: are you prepared to trust the company not to break the agreement”.

As always, good organisation is key to achieving positive change. For example, reps in a manufacturing setting reported how, when a video policy for process-timing was first introduced, staff conducted an unofficial “down tools” which helped reps agree a good policy with management. In another manufacturing setting, working practices are routinely videoed for review in collaboration with the union. A Unite rep reported how managers, again in a manufacturing setting, engaged in the practice of watching individual workers on a monitor and then fed the results into the appraisal scheme. The union complained, leading to the monitor’s removal. At the same employer, workplace reps routinely collaborate in decisions on re-siting CCTV cameras following accidents and near misses.

Another rep in manufacturing reported negotiating that: “General surveillance cameras are not allowed in the workplace. Any filming is always with the operator’s agreement and only used for specific purposes. It is not admissible in any disciplinary situations”. A bus transport rep reported that following strong union negotiations, all reps now have full involvement in the training, implementation and use of the CCTV system. Others report having access to the CCTV viewing footage whenever necessary and in particular, before disciplinary hearings.

Other reps were less positive, reporting a reluctance to seek out video footage that might have benefited their member wanting to defend a disciplinary or pursue a grievance: “Monitoring is being used increasingly to monitor performance of staff, but is frequently ignored when staff request images after incidents such as abuse from passengers” (rep in bus company).

In 2008, a Unite rep from a bus company in the North East told LRD that CCTV was installed on their buses, showing the whole bus inside and out at different angles, including the cab area. The union negotiated with the company on their day-to-day use, but did not accept cameras being pointed directly at drivers for reasons of privacy. The same employer later approached the union with a proposal to use the CCTV in combination with audio equipment, in contravention of a national agreement. Following negotiation, it was agreed that CCTV footage of any reportable incident from a passenger or supervisor could be viewed in the presence of a union official, but only for the period of time stated on the written incident report. A time span of ten minutes either side can be allowed if the report is about more than one issue.

Surveillance in schools — CCTV and biometric fingerprinting

Over the last five years, there has been an explosion in electronic surveillance and monitoring in schools, with one in seven schools insisting on students being fingerprinted to use in biometric systems for lunches and in school libraries (The Guardian, 9 June 2011). Face recognition security systems have reportedly been piloted in 10 schools and in a 2008 survey by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), 85% of teachers reported CCTV in schools, 10% reporting their presence in toilet blocks. The general consensus from the ATL survey is that classroom surveillance invades privacy, disrupts education and “should not be allowed in the classroom, where you would always feel as if you were being watched and judged.” The ATL has produced guidance and a policy on the use of CCTV in schools, both available from its website at: www.atl.org.uk/help-and-advice/school-and-college/CCTV.asp.

A government Protection of Freedoms Bill aims to address at least some of teachers’ concerns. Commenting on the Bill, the ATL has welcomed a clause forcing schools to obtain parental consent before fingerprinting pupils, noting that the union is “deeply unhappy about the widespread use of CCTV in schools and would welcome tougher regulations to control its use. While it is reasonable for schools to use CCTV to protect their premises, it must not be used to spy on staff or pupils. We firmly recommend that CCTV should not be installed before staff, parents and pupils have been consulted about its location and reasons for installation, and want strict guidelines about the use of any footage and who is allowed to access it”.

Examples of excessive CCTV use in schools have received widespread media coverage. The 2009 example of Stockwell Park High School in London is not unusual. The school was reported to have installed a surveillance system using at least 68 cameras (with more to come), which it claimed would help resolve disputes about bullying and claims against teachers and would tackle theft. Unions described the measure as “Big Brother-ish” and inappropriate. Cameras are increasingly found inside classrooms as well as corridors and outside areas. In the Stockwell case, access to the footage was controlled, with those wishing to use the material needing to apply to the principal in writing.

Chris Keates, general secretary of teachers’ union NASUWT, described the cameras as “inappropriate and a waste of money, offering no professional security or educational benefits”.

A link to cyber-bullying?

Human rights campaigning group Liberty points out the dangers of educating children in an environment which teaches them that pervasive monitoring is a normal state of affairs and that “privacy and individual dignity can be disregarded on a whim”. Such a perception no doubt also contributes to the growing problem of cyber-bullying of both pupils and teachers.

An ATL survey in April 2008 suggested that one in seven teachers had been cyber-bullied, including emails, texts and Facebook “hate groups”, as well as pupils recording teachers in the class room on their mobile phones. ATL and the other teaching unions produce downloadable guidance for members on dealing with cyber-bullying. The ATL fact sheet is available at: www.atl.org.uk/Images/ADV%2013%20Cyberbullying%20factsheet.pdf. NUT guidance, E-safety: protecting school staff, is available from their website at: www.teachers.org.uk/node/12517. The first practical step is to keep any evidence of the bullying by saving text messages, printing off emails and using the “print screen” function to record web content. A teacher facing cyber-bullying should contact his or her union rep for advice and support.

Cameras in toilets

In August 2007, the Northern Echo reported on possible industrial action by more than 1,000 workers at ThyssenKrupp Automotive in County Durham following installation of CCTV cameras in the factory’s toilet block. The action was taken following several instances of vandalism and condemned as “a horrendous breach of employee privacy” and “completely unacceptable” by general union Unite.

The union’s regional officer said the cameras had been installed without consultation with the unions on site, showing a total disregard for privacy and human rights at work. “If there is a problem with vandalism it can be monitored in many other ways”, he said. An employee added that there had never been any problems with the ladies’ toilets so there was no reason for the cameras in there.

Filter software

Most large to medium employers now use filter software, often with activity monitoring features that log all user actions, applications and web pages accessed, mouse movements, print requests, key strokes and memory stick insertions. Often, the software is administered by a third party, with line management only allowed to access information if they have genuine suspicion of misconduct (see ICO Code). Given the now ubiquitous presence of filter software, a good rule of thumb is that if you would not carry out an activity on your computer in full view of your line manager, it is probably not a good idea.

A 2007 study by independent research organisation, the Policy Studies Institute, showed how the widespread electronic logging and recording of work has led to a sharp increase in work strain — feelings of exhaustion, anxiety and worry related to work.

Email and internet

Most medium to large employers install software that searches for offensive or violent keywords, indicating private or malicious traffic and while employers are not allowed to open personal emails, except in exceptional circumstances (see Chapter 3), they can monitor email usage for anything unreasonable or inappropriate.

A Unite general union rep at a major car manufacturer told LRD: “There have been some dismissal cases through misuse of emails, whether on-site or on to a third party. A ‘zero tolerance’ policy is used in relation to pornographic, racial, offensive literature, etc, so the company has installed a warning policy that shows up on the screen every time a person logs on to the system. The company accepts some use of email/internet for personal benefit, but does not expect misuse.”

Biometrics — fingerprint, hand and face recognition software

The use of fingerprint technology to replace traditional clock-in devices is spreading in the UK. Budgens supermarket was one of the first to trial this system in 2008. One manager commented: “Like most organisations we knew we had a problem with ‘buddy punching’ [colleagues clocking in on behalf of fellow workers] but we had no way to prove it…With the biometric technology we are able to ensure we are getting work for the hours we are paying…”

The system providers, Time2, boast that under the system: “Staff breaks are monitored and reported on, as are lateness, early-outs and absenteeism.” The company’s website reports that over 600 companies have adopted its biometric Time and Attendance system. Supermarket chain Costcutter was also an early adopter of this technology.

Iris recognition software is also now in widespread use in many office security systems. Combined with ID swipe cards with embedded RFID chips (see below) this means visitors and employees can be identified and tracked in real time wherever they are in the building. One rep told LRD how his employer used swipe card data for disciplinary purposes to prove that a member was not at their desk. Another reported how the log from a security swipe card was used to provide evidence for “repeated lateness”.

UNISON members at Westminster Council “fought a media high profile campaign against fingerprinting/biometric signing in procedures in 2008 and won,” refusing to provide the fingerprints needed for the introduction of the new biometric clocking system. The branch provided all members with a standard letter from UNISON Westminster branch to hand to their managers, explaining why they would not be cooperating with the new system and threatening to complain to the Information Commissioner.

In another local authority, local government staff again successfully resisted the introduction of new clocking devices by collectively refusing to clock in and clock out: the machines were “swiftly removed”.

Vehicle tracking devices

Vehicle tracking software raises particular issues about privacy and intrusion because of its potential to place workers under the constant pressure of being spied on. “It feels as if we are being watched continually from the minute we set foot on the premises” (Unite rep: LRD survey 2011).

A vehicle tracking system is an electronic device installed in a vehicle to enable the owner or a third party to track the vehicle’s location. Most modern vehicle tracking systems use GPS. Many systems also combine a communications component, such as cellular or satellite transmitters, to communicate the vehicle’s location to a remote user. Vehicle information can be viewed on electronic maps via the internet or specialised software. Vehicle tracking systems also function as theft prevention and retrieval devices.

The workplace applications of these kinds of trackers include:

Fleet control — a delivery or taxi company may put a tracker in its vehicles, allowing staff to know if a vehicle is on time or late, or is doing its assigned route. The same applies for armoured trucks transporting valuable goods as it allows pinpointing the exact site of a possible robbery.

Surveillance — when put on a person or on a person’s vehicle, it allows the person monitoring the tracking to learn his/her habits or movements. The software can log a wide range of data including mileage, speeds, deviations from planned route and unauthorised stops and starts. A local government rep told LRD how all property maintenance and refuse vehicles at his employer are equipped with trackers and that one person working near his home who stopped off to use the toilet was telephoned by his employer within minutes of arriving at his home.

Some unions have been particularly active in protecting their members in this area. For example, in 2009, hundreds of BT engineers and members of CWU staged a mass demonstration in Southampton. Following this, CWU’s negotiating team was able to agree a Memorandum of Understanding with BT on future use of the GPS system in relation to BT field engineers.

In particular, the CWU secured a commitment that: “The system is not designed nor intended as an employee surveillance system, or as a discipline tool and it will not be the sole basis for instigating performance or disciplinary proceedings [and] the introduction of GPS [will] not result in changes to the performance management process currently used in [field engineering]”.

The Memorandum includes key commitments to openness and transparency, trust and confidence, and to joint consultation. It also expressly recognises the importance of employees’ private spaces: “Our employees should not be in fear of or subject to constant surveillance. They should be guaranteed areas, means of communication and periods during their working day which assure them a reasonable degree of privacy”. The agreement stipulates that line management are not to be given direct access to tracked vehicle movement data in real time.

In early 2011, around 800 CWU members engaged in a separate dispute with facilities management company Romec over the use of in-vehicle tracking devices. Drivers believed managers were consistently in breach of the national agreements. A strike ballot for a call-out ban was supported by a 90% majority of members. The dispute eventually resulted in a new agreement in which Romec committed to genuine involvement of the CWU at the development stage of all new technological initiatives, to help shape practices before decisions are taken.

The two sides also agreed to set up a joint National Consultative Forum. One of its first steps is to organise a joint study of travel efficiency (planned time versus actual time), collaborating on improvement opportunities. The Forum will also be keeping the introduction of new technologies and the use of the information they produce under on-going review.

The Data Protection Act Code of Practice contains guidance on in-vehicle monitoring (See Chapter 3). Reps should notice in particular that where private use of a vehicle is allowed:

• monitoring movements when in private use will rarely be justified without the user’s consent, freely given; and

• a privacy button or similar arrangement should be provided, so that monitoring can be disabled during private use (unless the employer is legally obliged to continue monitoring driving hours during private use.)

Radio-frequency identification and electronic tagging

A radio-frequency identification device (RFID) is an automatic identification method which relies on storing and remotely retrieving data using devices called RFID tags or transponders. A RFID tag is an object that can be applied to or incorporated into a product, animal, or person for the purpose of identification using radio waves.

For several years, general union GMB has been calling for safeguards for warehouse workers who are “electronically tagged” by wearing small computers on their wrists, arms and fingers. This is now commonplace at warehouse distribution centres run by employers supplying major chains, for example, Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda, Boots and Marks and Spencer.

These devices are strongly linked to deskilling. Michael Blakemore in his recent report for the GMB cites, for example, a supplier to Marks and Spencer extolling how “new warehouse operatives can be trained to use basic scanner functions within an hour”. Workers using a wearable computer no longer need to learn the geography of the warehouse because the computer receives a picking instruction and then “pre-optimises” their journey. Any residual job satisfaction is removed and the minimal skill level means that sick or under-performing workers, as well as those who burn out through monotony or exhaustion, can be quickly and cheaply replaced.

The system is equipped to provide “real time” data on employee performance, for example estimating the correct journey time needed to select a particular item and then comparing it to actual time taken, or calculating pick rates and down-time. At the end of each shift, line management are able to track immediately whose performance is below average. Any mistakes can be traced quickly back to the worker who made them. In other words, paradoxically, workers face greater “task accountability” while at the same time suffering ever diminishing control — a recipe for stress. In this scenario, the worker effectively becomes an automaton or drone and “an extension of the information systems that drive the supply chain” (Blakemore, 2011).

This kind of employment lends itself to a casualised workforce where contracts can be ended quickly and easily. It is no coincidence that, as the GMB notes, the lowest paid, most vulnerable workers tend to experience the most invasive monitoring.

Performance monitoring in the retail sector

Using electronic devices to monitor productivity is particularly prevalent in the retail sector where supermarket tills can log the rate of scanning, non-active time, customer time spent waiting and so on. Point-of-sale information can be used to compare the performance of one checkout worker against another, with the poorly performing worker not having his or her contract renewed.

During 2007, the Lidl supermarket chain made the headlines when exposed by employees for excessive monitoring. Checkout workers were expected to put 35-40 items through a till per minute, their average speed was recorded by the till’s computer and checked by managers each day. In Lidl depots, staff reported being given a target “pick-rate” of 220 cases an hour monitored by computers on their trucks. If they failed to hit target, they were reprimanded by managers. One employee estimated that he had worked around 100 shifts and only met the pick-rate 10 times. The company declined to comment on the allegations.

Performance monitoring in call centres

Call centre workers are particularly vulnerable to excessive performance monitoring and very high levels of task control. One rep explained to LRD how work is controlled by a workflow product that records work done, changes made and how long each activity takes. The records are fed into monthly Quality and Quantity Reviews which drive either disciplinary action or bonus awards.

A call centre was the setting of one of the best recent examples of unions organising to protect job quality and conditions at work. This was the series of strikes in early 2011 by PCS members at Jobcentre Plus call centres, protesting against the lack of control over their working day and its negative impact on wellbeing, job satisfaction and customer service. Staff complaints included being monitored throughout the day and having no control over the stream of calls allocated to them, or the length or timing of rest or toilet breaks, as well as oppressive targets, including rigid call length limits, at the end of which the worker was expected to wind up the call. Staff struggled to manage the conflict between wanting to provide good quality customer service to vulnerable benefit claimants and having to meet unrealistically high targets for call number and length.

The dispute resulted in an interim agreement containing concrete commitments to improve working conditions, including a written commitment from the DWP to provide staff with “the best possible job design, including varied work and a progression path [and that] staff are fully respected at work and are trusted to do their job without excessive and unnecessary checks and monitoring”.

Specific improvements negotiated by the union included a commitment by the DWP to allow greater flexibility on working hours to help staff balance the needs of life and work, ending the use of the “Balanced Scorecard” and “league tables”, and the promise of a new performance management framework, focused on quality as opposed to quantity, as well as greater flexibility on targets such as “average holding time”, rest breaks, lunches and annual leave and a promise not to monitor toilet breaks. The agreement is “interim” only because the union feels that it does not yet go far enough to meet members’ concerns.

LRD also heard from general union Unite of similar issues in relation to call centre working conditions at one of the UK’s largest retail banks, although the union acknowledged that its concerns are typical of the sector as a whole, and that the bank was not the worst culprit.

Bank staff experienced particular problems with the so-called “idle” code. This is the code used to indicate that no calls are to be put through to a member of staff. The idle code is intended to enable the operator to carry out necessary activities between calls, such as completing paperwork, but the union reports staff being suspended and disciplined based on allegations that the idle code is being used for “call avoidance”, an activity the bank treats as gross misconduct. Other disciplinary investigations at the bank have involved accusations of “call termination” with staff accused of deliberately cutting calls short to meet call-handling targets.

Research by LRD in 2010 revealed that surveillance and privacy can be a particular concern in call centres in relation to toilet breaks — a significant issue for pregnant women. For example, at the Metropolitan Police’s three call centres in London, phone operators were required to record a “Code three” every time they went to the toilet and the information was stored on a database. At a government call centre in Cardiff, management introduced a system where each bank of six desks was given a wooden spoon and anyone going to the toilet had to take the spoon. If someone had already taken the spoon, no one else could go to the toilet. The procedure was abandoned following intervention by civil service union PCS.

In some call centres, details of how many “comfort breaks” have been taken and their duration are collated, leading PCS to protest about “Big Brother” style monitoring of members. At the data processing centres of one government department, staff had to request permission to go to the toilet. This has now been modified after negotiations with PCS to provide for 15 minutes of “unauthorised breaks” per day.

At Tameside Council, there were difficulties in a call centre mostly involving female staff and staff with medical conditions such as Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS). These were resolved with the provision of official breaks: five minutes per hour for all staff, with more time for anyone with a medical condition.